TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CONSUELA GAFFGA, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, J. V. GAFFGA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this personal injury case arising from a street car door incident, the Florida Supreme Court found the jury verdict of $5,000 (reduced by remittitur to $2,000) still excessive under Florida's damages statute. The court conditionally affirmed the judgment at $500 if the defendant accepted an additional remittitur of $1,500, otherwise the judgment would be reversed.
The court held that the $2,000 judgment was greatly in excess of recoverable damages under the statute and offered defendant the option to accept an additional $1,500 remittitur (reducing judgment to $500) within 30 days; if refused, the judgment would be reversed entirely.
“the injury received could not in reason have caused very great or prolonged pain or suffering, did not entail expense or very much loss of activity and was not in any way permanent”
The court's factual finding that the injury was minor and non-permanent, supporting reduction of damages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConsuela Gaffga was injured when caught in a door while alighting from a street car operated by Tampa Electric Company. A jury awarded her $5,000 in d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Injury Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In an action for alleged personal injuries received by being caught in a door in alighting from a street car, a verdict for $5,000.00' was returned for the plaintiff. Upon suggestion of the trial court a remittitur of $3,000.00 was entered and judgment was rendered for $2,000.00. A motion for new trial was denied the defendant company and writ of error was taken.
A careful examination of the evidence contained in the transcript clearly shows that the injury received could not in reason have caused very -great or prolonged pain or suf fering, did not entail expense or very much loss of activity and was not in any way permanent.
It is also manifest that the amount of the judgment as rendered, after remittitur, is greatly in excess of the “damage done” for which compensation, is allowed by the statute. Sec. 3148, Gen. Stats., 1906, Compiled Laws, 1914.
If the defendant in error will enter a remittitur of $1,-500.00 within 30 days after the filing of the mandate in the court below the judgment will stand affirmed for $500.00; otherwise the judgment will stand reversed. Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693, 84 South. Rep. 726; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Conant, 79 Fla. 668, 84 South. Rep.. 688; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336, 79 South. Rep. 767; Saunders Transfer Co. v. Underwood, 77 Fla. 167, 81 South. Rep. 105; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Schumacher, 63 Fla. 137, 57 South. Rep. 603; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101, 64 South. Rep. 504; Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 South. Rep. 714. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pipkin, 64 Fla. 24, 59 South. Rep. 564.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1922)…ep. 105; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336, 79 South. Rep. 767; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Conant, 79 Fla. 668, 84 South. Rep. 688; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pitkin, 64 Fla. 24, 59 South. Rep. 564; Tampa Electric Co. v. Gaffga, 81 Fla. 268, 87 South. Rep. 922; Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693, 84 South. Rep. 726; Lindsey Turpentine Co. v. Souls, 81 Fla. 339, 87 South. Rep. 782; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Prewitt, 81 Fla. 423, 88 South. Rep. 160. If the second plea on which the requested se…
-
S. Fla. Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1922)…. Simon, 56 Fla. 545, 47 South. Rep. 1001; Saunders Transfer Co. v. Underwood, 77 Fla. 167, 81 South. Rep. 105; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Frank, 76 Fla. 384, 80 South. Rep. 60; Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693, 84 South. Rep. 726; Tampa Elec. Co. v. Gaffga, 81 Fla. 268, 87 South. Rep. 922; Lindsey Turpentine Co. v. Soule. 81 Fla. 339, 87 South. Rep. 782; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Prewitt, 81 Fla. 423, 88 South. Rep. 160; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Conant, 79 Fla. 668, 84 South. Rep. 688; Empire Drug Co. v. S…
-
City of Miami v. Firth, 85 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1923)…y days after the filing of the mandate In the trial court, the plaintiff remits. $2500.00 of the damages awarded, the judgment will stand affirmed for $2500.00 otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. Tampa Electric Co. v. Gaffga, 81 Fla. 268; 93 South. 148. It is so ordered. Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1914)
- Fla. Ry. & Navigation Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1889)
- Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1920)
- Powell v. Susanna Powell, 77 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1919)
- Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336 (Fla. 1918)
- Fla. E. Coast R.R. Co. v. Effie W. Schumacher and James M. Schumacher, 63 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1912)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Cassie Pipkin and E. H. Pipkin, 64 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1912)
- Saunders Transfer Co. v. Underwood, 77 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1919)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Conant, 79 Fla. 668 (Fla. 1920)